1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule β now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available


2. New: βIn Favour Ofβ filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws β
Just a moment...
1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule β now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available


2. New: βIn Favour Ofβ filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws β
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
<h1>Tribunal Upholds Classification of Items as Conveyor Equipment under CET Act</h1> The Tribunal upheld the Order-in-Appeal classifying items cleared in CKD condition as conveyor and material handling equipment under Heading 8428.00 of ... Conveyor and material handling equipment Issues involved: Classification of goods under Heading 8428.00 of CET Act, interpretation of Rule 2(a) of Interpretative Rules, consideration of clearances made at the factory gate for classification.Summary:1. The Revenue appealed against an Order-in-Appeal classifying items cleared in CKD condition as conveyor and material handling equipment under Heading 8428.00 of CET Act. The Commissioner considered HSN notes and previous OIA findings to support this classification. 2. The Revenue argued that each part should be separately classified, not as conveyor equipment, based on Rule 2(a) of Interpretative Rules and individual clearances made at the factory gate. 3. The Revenue's representative reiterated the appeal grounds, emphasizing classification based on clearances at the factory gate, contrary to treating them as conveyor equipment. 4. Despite the absence of respondents, the case was reviewed on its merits. 5. The Order-in-Appeal detailed why the entire system should be classified as conveyor and material handling equipment under Heading 8428.00, considering HSN notes. The appeal's argument for separate classification of parts was rejected as items were cleared in CKD condition as a complete system for transportation. 6. The Tribunal found no issues with the impugned order and rejected the appeal due to lack of merit.